Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit

On 03/09/2015 09:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Objections?  Even better ideas?
>
> I object on the grounds that we're three weeks past the deadline for
> the last CommitFest, and that we should be trying to get committed
> those patches that were submitted on time, not writing new ones that
> will further increase the amount of reviewing that needs to be done
> before we can get to beta, and perhaps the bug count of that
> eventually when it arrives.  In particular, I think that the fact that
> you haven't made more of an effort to give the GROUPING SETS patch a
> more detailed review is quite unfair to Andrew Gierth.  But regardless
> of that, this is untimely and should be pushed to 9.6.
From the reading the original post it seems like the patch was 
developed on Sales Force's time, not TGLs. I do not think we get to have 
an opinion on that.

Thank you Tom for the efforts you made here, making the largest used PL 
better, faster, stronger is exactly the type of micro-changes we need to 
be looking at for further polish within the database.

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc

Now I get it: your service is designed for a customer
base that grew up with Facebook, watches Japanese seizure
robot anime, and has the attention span of a gnat.
I'm not that user., "Tyler Riddle"